. My arguments are based on empirical data, personal experience and formal training, NOT interviews/broadcasts/and or mainstream news. Atmospheric science, including climate change is a different, but related (graduate) program of study.
My argument is that the science, good or bad, is being used as an excuse to move money. Why are the 'pro' scientists arguing about the data? If they really believe in their theory shouldn't they have moved on to finding solutions, or at least found other scientist that can find solutions? Why is their solution to their problem getting me to agree that there is a problem? WHAT COMES NEXT?
So far the only solution is to try and involve other governments that want no part of this re-distribution of wealth (like China). Redistributing wealth is not fixing this problem (if there really is one). Kyoto didn't work. Copenhagen was a farce of massive proportions... The fact that we allow our current administration to contribute to it is incredibly embarrassing to me.
I suspect the 'pro' scientists may be receiving funding from foreign governments and private enterprise that want a positive result? Remember that private funding for undertakings like these is usually only found in the US these days. Some of these guys may be clinging to their theory because it justifies their $xxxM+ yearly funding.
Socialism was dead, or at least dying. The Chinese are embracing democracy and free trade, and it's turning them into a superpower. The wall has come down, and parts of the old USSR (Czech Republic?) are becoming the "go to" area for what used to be good union production jobs in the US. The 'new' Socialists/Liberals are now going GREEN. They are using what might very well be good data from a few superior scientists as an excuse to further their agenda. As long as the politicians try to use this data and results to further extreme liberal ideas (re-distribution of global wealth) I will continue to question it! They are giving me no choice.
(Wow. After re-reading that paragraph I think I might just need to ask RyanR for a(n?) NRA application. I scare myself sometimes.)
The point is: you can't rely upon
anything generated by news agencies. There's usually an element of truth, a fistful of spin, and a heaping serving of bias...you've heard of editors, program directors, and producers, right? Surely you know the difference between scientists and non-scientists (maybe not). The other point is you're never really sure who you're arguing with here in these forums - NOBODY here knows me, including you. I'm just a lurker.
If the atmospheric specialists can't agree that the data is good, and argue that the methodology and results are skewed, what chance do I have of filtering out all the smoke? I have to rely on news sources to report weaknesses found by other climate scientists, and then go and try to verify the finding.
And I'll argue a point on this subject with anyone (even MACFLY). 
I don't know you. Are you part of the Green Police?
No, seriously. Do you fish, or did you just stop in because this forum popped up in Google under Global Warming? Either way it's been an interesting thread.
To be fair, you, mbwmn, seem to take more interest in this subject than most - and for that reason alone, I commend you. Still don't care for some of the rude remarks directed at me (i.e., MACFLY) - but hey, MACFLY knows everything! Go get 'em, Mr. MACFLY I Read This Recent Article in US News & World Report! I suspect he's close to solving the world's problems and I definitely don't want to slow the big guy down.
Well, MACFLY seems to do ok defending himself. I don't think he needs my help here. And I'm not sure who started the name-calling... He does make some pretty strong arguments though.
I often let my passion for personal freedom and my campaign against stupidity in government get the best of me.
Again: "good fishin" and take care.
-------------------------------
/mac
